Now is not the time to hate the state

Many Americans are in denial about their dependence on social spending, says Mark Engler.

During the Tea Party’s heyday, you
could find variations of the ‘Keep Your
Government Hands Off My Welfare
State’ sign at rallies around the US. My
favourite was a handmade version by a
woman who had written out her slogan
in black marker and then added, in
red, a hammer and sickle to symbolize
the peril of socialized medicine. The
placard read: ‘Government Keep Your
Hands Off My Medicare.’

Ideology and reality had been set
on a collision course, and this absurd
mash-up was the result.

Struggle as it might, the reality that
Medicare – America’s government-run
health insurance – is one of the
nation’s largest (and most popular)
public programmes could not
overcome the rightwing imperative to
hate the state. Sometimes, it seems,
keeping hate alive means making
tough sacrifices in the realm of logic.

Homeless in San
Francisco. Many
Americans are in
denial about their
dependence on
the state.
Franco Folini Under a CC Licence

The Tea Party’s visibility has
diminished significantly since 2009.
However, the disconnect between
popular perceptions of US government
and its actual function endures.

In February, the New York Times
published an article entitled ‘Even
Critics of Safety Net Increasingly
Depend on It’. Several accompanying
maps showed that some areas which
rely heavily on public programmes – for
example, Owsley County, Kentucky,
where per capita payments for food
stamps are the highest in the country
– vote overwhelmingly for conservative
Republicans who vow to slash social
spending. Other studies show that
deeply conservative Mississippi,
Arkansas and Tennessee are among the
places where residents, on average, get
the highest percentage of their income
from government supports.

Of course, there is a fine tradition
of allowing one’s behaviour and
professed beliefs to go their separate
ways: Bible-belt states whose residents
claim to promote chastity and ‘family
values’ have higher rates of divorce
– not to mention higher numbers
of online porn subscriptions – than
supposed Gomorrahs like New York
and California.

For one, when people talk about
making cuts, they do not picture
themselves in their mental community
of deadbeats. In his response to the
safety net report, New York Times
columnist Paul Krugman cited
Suzanne Mettler of Cornell University,
whose research shows that ‘44 per cent
of Social Security recipients, 43 per
cent of those receiving unemployment
benefits, and 40 per cent of those on
Medicare say that they “have not used
a government programme”.’

These people are thinking of cutting
services for others – like immigrants,
who in fact account for only a small
portion of government spending.

Yet, as The Economist notes, in other
countries appeals from anti-immigrant
populists (think Le Pen’s National Front
in France) include a strong defence of
state entitlement programmes. The
commitment to the ideal – if not the
practice – of determined self-sufficiency
is distinctly American. And it’s
intensifying at an odd moment.

Contrary to Tea Party belief,
most of the growth in government
programmes has come not because
President Obama has boldly expanded
benefits. Rather, amid a historic
economic downturn, more people have
needed these supports. Just when the
safety net is doing precisely what it
should, conservative leaders denounce
a system run amok.

In doing so, they encourage a
misplacement of resentment. Business
has taken the American denial of
mutual support straight to the bank.
As economist Dean Baker points
out, the failure of working people
to gain from productivity increases
is a far greater financial burden than
anything government levies in taxes.
Productivity has grown more than 80
per cent since 1979, with nothing close
to a commensurate increase in wages.

Early in the economic recovery, the
distribution of benefits has been even
worse. In 2010, America’s top 1 per
cent claimed 93 per cent of all income
gains. Income for the great bulk of
citizens actually decreased.

Engrossing people in the tailchasing
fight to keep government out
of government is a brilliant means of
distracting from this situation. Sadly
for those who join the battle, winning
could mean destroying the very social
programmes they depend upon for survival.

Mark Engler is a senior analyst with Foreign
Policy In Focus and author of How to Rule the
World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy
(Nation Books, 2008). He can be reached via the
website: DemocracyUprising.com

New Internationalist reports on issues of world poverty and inequality. We focus attention on the unjust relationship between the powerful and the powerless worldwide in the fight for global justice. More about our work